We Hold People With Power To Account. Why Not Algorithms? (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: All around us, algorithms provide a kind of convenient source of authority: an easy way to delegate responsibility, a short cut we take without thinking. Who is really going to click through to the second page of Google results every time and think critically about the information that has been served up? Or go to every airline to check if a comparison site is listing the cheapest deals? Or get out a ruler and a road map to confirm that their GPS is offering the shortest route? But already in our hospitals, our schools, our shops, our courtrooms and our police stations, artificial intelligence is silently working behind the scenes, feeding on our data and making decisions on our behalf. Sure, this technology has the capacity for enormous social good -- it can help us diagnose breast cancer, catch serial killers, avoid plane crashes and, as the health secretary, Matt Hancock, has proposed, potentially save lives using NHS data and genomics. Unless we know when to trust our own instincts over the output of a piece of software, however, it also brings the potential for disruption, injustice and unfairness.

If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf -- by allowing them to pinpoint a murder suspect, to diagnose a condition or take over the wheel of a car -- we have to think carefully about what happens when things go wrong.

Comments

uninformed point of view

[iggymanz]

The software in life critical and safety systems indeed is already held to account. Conviction for a crime requires humans who review evidence and its veracity. Privacy depends on your lawmakers, some countries have a mindset of respecting it, others don't and wont' throwing the buzzword "AI" into a sentence doesn't change the problem that it's about software in general, whether or not a marketer slaps "AI" label on it

let's be precise

[ooloorie]

We Hold People With Power To Account. Why Not Algorithms?

We don't generically "hold people with power to account". The law requires that legally competent adults comply with legally binding agreements they have entered (employment contracts, etc.), and the law punishes criminal behavior. Legal competency requires free will and agency, neither of which "algorithms" possess.

If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf

The ABS braking algoritihm in your car makes "life-changing decisions" you your behalf. It is you (the car's owner) and the manufacturer who are responsible for those decisions, depending on circumstances.

On the other hand, doctors make life changing decisions all the time, frequently get it wrong, and frequently are not held accountable. Nor should they be: when you make life changing decisions with limited information, you often get it wrong. That's not a flaw, that's life.

Ultimately, humans ARE responsible

[argStyopa]

In the OP's posted story, Robert was the dumb fuck that almost drove off a cliff.
You cannot hold algorithms accountable, they're NOT PEOPLE. They cannot be punished. They don't feel remorse.

All we can do is to explicitly build a legislative system that follows the trail back to the human that gave the algorithm that power.

If Bob is driving a car, it's STILL Bob's responsibility to watch to damned road.
If Bob is sold a self-driving car with the written assurance from the dealer that this car will drive itself in conditions a, b, and c, if Bob gets killed during a, b, or c, ultimately the dealer is liable at LEAST for manslaughter, worse if they knew it wasn't perfected.

If the dealer was assured by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer is responsible. I would even say all the way to personal liability the person or group of persons who signed-off that this *was* capable.
Don't like that risk, Mr Auto Executive? Then don't sign off that X is safe until you're willing to take that risk.

(And I don't know if I'm just excessively cynical, but I don't see a lot of "holding people with power" to account EITHER. Hell, I don't see that holding ANY people to account - even for the logical consequences of their OWN CHOICES - is much of a priority in our society.)

We DON'T Hold people with power accountable

[Archangel Michael]

We rarely hold people with power accountable. Instead, decisions are made in committee and by a series of processes that obfuscate and remove culpability of decisions from those that are authorizing it.

Lets say to do Action A, it requires approval by several committees or individuals. We'll keep it simple.

Committee 1 votes to do Action A (sounds like a good idea)
Person 1 checks to see if Action A(b) violates some metric (it doesn't)
Person 2 checks to see if Action A(c) passes certain functional tests. (it does)
Person 3 verifies results of tests A(b) and A(c) (it does)
Committee 2 finalizes approval of Action A

Action A causes massive death due to Action A doing something nobody checked for. There is no person responsible for this, it was just a bad "accident". However, looking back, Action A was a bad idea from the start, but it passed all the tests. Nobody is responsible.

Hillary can say with clear conscience that her signature on Uranium One deal was only one of 17 required, it isn't her fault. Even though the sale of Uranium to the Russians was stupid idea, no one person can be blamed. No accountability. The buck stops in committee.